Teacher’s engineering thinking as a resource of technological sovereignty: a theory-applied approach
https://doi.org/10.54884/2414-1186-2025-8-2-012
Abstract
Aim. The aim of the article is to study the engineering thinking of primary school teachers as a professional resource that ensures the technological sovereignty of Russia, as well as to assess the effectiveness of the “INZHENERiYA” program in the development of these competencies.
Methodology and results. The study relied on systemic, design, design and psychological and pedagogical approaches. The study used methods for analyzing the professional and important qualities of teachers, testing the “INZHENERiYA” program and collecting data using a checklist of self-assessment of the components of engineering thinking (systemic, project, critical, creative and reflective). Statistical processing was carried out using Fisher’s angular transformation to assess the validity of the changes. The results showed a significant improvement in all components of teachers’ engineering thinking (p < 0,01), the largest increase was observed in critical thinking and evaluation of results in children.
Research implications. The results obtained contribute to the improvement of the methodology for improving the qualifications of primary school teachers, and the proposed program “INZHENERiYA” allows to systematically develop the engineering thinking of teachers and improve their professional competencies.
About the Author
Larisa V. Bersenyova
Sevastopol State University, Sevastopol
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Psychology Sciences), Assoc. Prof., Prof., Department of Psychology
References
1. Konstantinova, N. V. (2024). STEAM approach to technology education in elementary school: opportunities and limitations. In: Modern science: actual problems of theory and practice. Series: Humanities, 11–2, pp. 91–95. DOI 10.37882/2223-2982.2024.11-2.22 (in Russ.).
2. Ivanova, N. V. & Kolosunin, V. M. (2025). Analysis of the readiness of primary school teachers to develop the basics of engineering thinking in children. In: International Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences, 2-1(101), pp. 148–151. DOI 10.24412/2500-1000-2025-2-148-151 (in Russ.).
3. Order of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation No. 286 dated May 31, 2021 “On approval of the Federal State Educational Standard of Primary General Education”. In: Official Internet portal of Legal Information. URL: http:// clck.ru/3PGv4Q (accessed: 13.08.2025) (in Russ.).
4. Professional standard “Teacher” In: National Register of Professional Standards URL: https://clk.li/bmoS (accessed: 03.04.2025) (in Russ.).
5. Schafer, O. R., Lebedeva, T. N., Kraineva, S. V. & Kochetkova, G. S. (2024). Diversified approaches and strategies for the formation of engineering thinking among students of pedagogical universities. In: Proceedings of the Saratov University. A new series. Series: Acmeology of education. Psychology of development, 13, 4(52), pp. 296–310. DOI 10.18500/2304-9790-2024-13-4-296-310 (in Russ.).
6. Pankratova, V. G. Professionally important qualities of primary school teachers (2021). In: Bulletin of the Leningrad State University named after A. S. Pushkin, 2, pp. 41–52. DOI 10.35231/18186653_2021_2_41. – EDN JBLOAB (in Russ.).
7. Lomonosov: discoveries in science and culture. URL: https://pk-dia.ru/info/articles/biznes-sovety/lomonosov/ (accessed: 24.04.2025) (in Russ.).
8. Sovetkin Dmitry Konstantinovich. Teachers. Educational figures. URL: https://bigenc.ru/c/sovetkin-dmitrii-konstantinovich-0d3f83 (accessed: 21.04.2025) (in Russ.).
9. Senashenko, V. S., Verbitsky, A. A., Ibragimov, G. I., Osipov, P. N., et al. (2021). Engineering pedagogy: methodological issues (round table) (2017). In: Higher education in Russia, 11(217), pp. 137–157 (in Russ.).
10. Danilaev, D. P. & Malivanov, N. N. (2021). The evolution of engineering pedagogy: foundations and three dimensions. In: Higher education in Russia, 30 (1), pp. 125–138. DOI 10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-11-125-138 (in Russ.).
11. Cross N. (2007). Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer Science & Business Media.
12. Papert S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.
13. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. In: Communications of the ACM, 49 (3), pp. 33–35.
14. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Basic Books.
Review
For citations:
Bersenyova L.V. Teacher’s engineering thinking as a resource of technological sovereignty: a theory-applied approach. MODERN ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL PEDAGOGICAL EDUCATION. 2025;8(2 (30)). (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.54884/2414-1186-2025-8-2-012
Views:
20
Email this article 